Talk:Virginia Tech shooting

It wasn't a massacre, it was a "shooting"

According to the clowns who refuse to retitle the Sandy Hooking Elementary School shooting article to use the word "massacre" instead of shooting, article titles are dictated by the most commonly accepted naming convention, specifically by comparing the number of Google hits for two different potential names. "Virginia Tech shooting" gets 21,000,000 hits, whereas "Virginia Tech massacre" only gets 2,100,000 hits. Somebody needs to retitle this article "Virginia Tech shooting". After all, it's a bit silly to have the Sandy Hook tragedy titled "shooting" but this is titled "massacre" when the alleged naming standard dictates that both incidents should be named "shootings". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.44.248 (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Red Flags???

"red flags" such as an "unusual interest in police, military equipment, weapons, and camouflage"

So I guess half the male population is at risk of being mass murderers? I'm sorry, when I was growing up, most all my friends loved playing with guns, reading and talking about guns, the military, and the sometimes the police. And many of my friends wore camo gear or bdu's and military gear for fun. This is ridiculous. Perhaps having testosterone was a red flag that he might be homicidal??? Interest in weapons and the military may indicate a sense of powerlessness, but it doesn't indicate homicidal tendencies. Uh, perhaps stalking women and being diagnosed with mental disorders might have been red flags. Ya think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, deleted from lead. If this detail belongs anywhere, it should be added further down, not in the lead, and in the context of other findings about Cho's behavior. --Sfmammamia (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite the comment by anonymous, the concept of “Red Flags” to identify people who may act violently like Cho is still valid. Reference 1 of the main article, "Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel" , contains Appendix M, “Red Flags, Warning Signs and Indicators” associated with school shootings. There are over 20 such Red Flags or warning signs identified by Roger Depue (the author of Appendix M) that provided a clear actionable indication that Cho was indeed a danger to himself and others (regardless of what the inept bureaucrats who were responsible for leaving him unattended on campus had to say before the massacre). Depue states that “A single warning sign by itself does not warrant overt action….. it should, however attract attention … to look for other possible warning signs… to determine if there is a likelihood of danger.” Dupre goes on to cite an example: “if a person simply possesses firearms and has no other warning signs, it is unlikely they represent a significant risk of danger.”

Unfortunately as Cho matured, we as a society were not able to see his Red Flags. By the time he was in college, he was sending out at least 16 of Depue’s 22 warning signs. During Cho’s life several responsible adults did try to intervene as best they could, but the invention was not comprehensive and as result was not effective in eliminating the danger he posed to himself and others.

Ironically, Cho did not really stand out as highly unusual in the remaining 6 of the 22 warning signs:

1. Fascination with weapons (he purchased the guns only several months before the massacre)
2. Boasting and practicing of fighting and combat proficiency
3. Violence and cruelty
4. Inappropriate affect (enjoying cruel behavior)
5. Unusual interest in police, military, terrorist activities
6. Use of alcohol / drugs

Cho did however send up over half of Depue’s Red Flags with the following behaviors:

1. Violent fantasy content (writings, drawings)
2. Loner
3. Expressionless face / anhedonia (inability to express joy / pleasure)
4. Strangeness and aberrant behavior
5. Interest in previous shooting situations (e.g. Columbine)
6. Mental Health history
7. Stalking
8. Victim/martyr self concept
9. Suicidal ideation
10. Homicidal ideation
11. Anger problems
12. Police contact

And to a lesser degree

1. Non-compliance and disciplinary problems
2. Imitation of other murderers
3. Paranoia
4. Acting out

Although not mentioning Cho specifically, Depue concludes “…a person who possesses firearms, is a loner, shows an interest in past shooting situations, writes stories about homicide and suicide, exhibits aberrant behavior, has talked about retribution against others, and has a history of mental illness and refuses counseling would obviously be considered a significant risk of becoming dangerous to himself or others.”

I would hope that someone who is knowledgeable in this area would add a section on “Red Flags” to help educate the rest of us so there is a better chance that the next school shooting could be prevented (rather than documented). Mahetrick (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP poster wasn't saying there shouldn't be a discussion of 'Red Flags,' just that that particular identifier is nonsense. I would say the majority of the male population has such interests, more or less - and they don't go 'postal' and commit a crime of this nature. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Move undone

Someone just moved this article to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University massacre. I moved it back. That's a good redirect to have but a very bad name for this article. Put simply, no one refers to this event by that name. And common usage is one of our guiding principles in naming articles.

Any other thoughts or discussion? --ElKevbo (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, strongly agree. Almost no support in the reliable sources for the alternate name. Ronnotel (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No move is necessary, this is where the article should be, redirects are sufficient. The move was extremely pedantic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added move protection. As silly as the alternate name was, that's not why - this page has previously been a move vandalism target but unfortunately, when it gets s-protected and the s-protection expires, the move protection goes with it. I've restored the previous move protection to prevent Grawp vandalism. --B (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Ronnotel (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No one calls Tech VPI these days. and the user who did the move has taken to constantly blanking their talk page. Bad form all around. DarkAudit (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti Korean Backlash

Didn't a Korean VT student shoot himself in his car in the Target parking lot in Christiansburg, VA, after being bullied by other students because he was Korean? This incident occured after the shootings and I recall he mentioned something about how people said he looked like Cho. Redjoker01 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)redjoker01: 10/17/08

Conspiracy theorists

I just saw a Korean TV show which claimed that Cho didn't do it, and was merely a scapegoat for the real killer, who presumably remains at large. Do we have any citable Korean sources that make the conspiracy claim? 121.162.51.143 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a better question to ask is, are there any credible sources that make this claim? This sounds so fringey and prima facie silly that, even if one could find someone to quote on it, the claim that Cho was somehow framed probably wouldn't merit any more weight in the article than the "costume incident" -- e.g., none at all. --Dynaflow babble 11:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

New details of VT massacre

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TECH01_20090201-003926/194507/ More sites locked before Tech alert

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TECH02_20090201-222813/195587/No Tech follow-up on Cho incidents

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TECH03_20090202-221910/196413/ Part 3: Va. Tech’s warning was too late

http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/images/20090202/vatechdocuments.html Two Versions of Events at Virginia Tech

http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/pdfs/VTContents.pdf Va. Tech documents

http://www.prevailarchive.org/archive/ The Prevail Archive is a volunteer Virginia Tech student effort to make internal documents relating to the events of April 16 at Virginia Tech publicly accessible

Springmorning (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Settlement

The article says that there is/was a settlement, yet it fails to say who or what is paying the money to the families?--Demertius840 (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Add reference to "No Right to Remain Silent"

The article could include a reference to Lucinda Roy's book, "No Right to Remain Silent: The Tragedy at Virginia Tech"

Between references 3 & 4, there is a sentence referring to people who identified the need for intervention - Roy appears to be one of those individuals.

Mahetrick (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hokie

Reading this article, I'm left wondering what "Hokie" means.Unfree (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I corrected the problem by making "Virginia Tech Hokies" link to a Wikipedia article of that title.Unfree (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what went wrong, but I seemed to have discovered that the brackets I inserted were within what already was a link, and thus didn't work, but now I can't find the link, and must leave someone cleverer to fix the problem I discovered initially.Unfree (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Dynaflow babble 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order

The article claims to be listing deaths in chronological order. However, Librescu is third on the list, while the text of the article states, that Cho first went to Room 206 and 207 and killed people there, before going to Room 204, and killing Librescu.Aquila89 (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

infobox photo

Shouldn't the infobox photo show the actual massacre, not a separate (but related) event? The mourning of students isn't the massacre, the shooting that took place prior is. Wikipedia should be as direct as possible in describing things. 76.167.53.67 (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This photo is an iconic image that was taken during the events immediately following the massacre, which are included in this article. It would seem to me that there are no available images of the massacre per se, but rather of police response to the massacre, or emergency workers responding to the casualties, both of which are related in much the same way as the memorial service was. Additionally, there are limitations about what can be used in Wikipedia, and many images taken during the immediate aftermath would be copyrighted by the press agency that captured them. If you can find a free image that you think better represents this event, please by all means suggest it on this talk page, and I'm sure it will be given proper consideration. HokieRNB 23:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, this article is about much more than just the shootings themselves. It also (rightfully) encompasses the events preceding and following the shootings, including the aftermath and reaction on- and off-campus. In that context, I think the current image is entirely appropriate. Moreover, aesthetically it's a really good image and that, too, should count for something. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There are likely not any photos of the massacre or the aftermath that are going to be compatible with Wikipedia's licensing as they'll likely be copied from some news service.--RadioFan (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Some misinformation on Gun Laws

Request someone reword part of this article:

The article states that visitors and third-parties are banned from carrying weapons: this is not true. As a state entity, VPIU&SU is prohibited from enacting such a ban by Virginia law. It is only a violation of school rules for a student or employee to carry and can be met with disciplinary action. In the case of the student who carried a firearm with a concealed handgun permit, it is NOT illegal and no charges could ever be filed because no law was broken. He could be subject to administrative disciplinary processes, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.43.45 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice theory, but not a reality. You can do a simple search and quickly find that the courts have ruled that institutions such as schools can mandate policy for bringing a weapon on campus in spite of any permit. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Response section

I feel that this section is too detailed and focused on too many little incidents. In particular, I question whether the article should include the paragraph on the marching bands, and whether we need quite so much detail on the South Korean response. I hesitate to make this kind of broad change unilaterally, though. What do others think? Karanacs (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought a lot of that material could have been one sentence, but was reluctant to do it myself. The marching band bit was obviously added after the article had reached FA. I think go ahead and reduce the response sections (I moved them together, they were scattered thither and yon.) Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but i just replaced the misnomer "Vermont" Tech, with Virginia Tech, twice in this section. I assume someone did some typos and mistakenly used the name of another "V" state when writing the text.Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Titling seems inconsistent and biased when comparing articles about shootings.

I want to put this out there for consideration. With each additional mass shooting that occurs around the world, a very relevant question emerges for the editorial members of the Wikipedia community. Namely, why this event and Columbine are considered "massacres" while other events (Fort Hood, etc.) are called "shootings?"

Sadly, it would appear to me that Wikipedia writers are making "body count" a determination when titling articles like this one. Who determines what level of body count gets the "massacre" title? Why? Is it objective? Unbiased? Seems not.

And it's not how it's referred to in the local and national media/press coverage. Nor is it how official documents from government/state accounts, panels and reports refer to these events. In Virginia, the Governor's office refers to it simply as "April 16" or "April 16 incident" in the key findings. The University calls it a "Tragedy." The media in the state call it simply the "April 16th shooting" or "April 16, 2007" or "Tragedy." Attorneys for the victim's families, victim's families, and living victims refer to it as a "shooting" or "tragedy." Examples are below.

• The Governor's Panel Report / Key Findings
• Ronaoke Times Coverage
• New York Times Coverage
• Richmond Times Coverage
• Letter from Attorneys of Victims

I'd like to see an explanation and recommendation regarding future titling for active shooter / mass killing articles. I think that it's important for Wikipedia to develop a clear taxonomy for these events. A taxonomy that also makes it easier to research all events would be helpful -- a single phrase or term that would rank higher in search engines and also support end-user phraseology is critical, I think. Calling one event a "massacre" and another a "shooting" isn't objective. Especially if based solely on body count.

In the case of this article, it appears to need a different title so that one could aggregate it with all the other coverage and reports from media, the state and government sources and courts.

(Possum4all (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

As a follow-up, I am cross-posting this from the Columbine High School Talk on titling....

Selecting reasonable, objective and unbiased perspectives/procedures for documenting these acts is the responsibility of the Wikipedia community. If the event has failed to be covered as a "massacre" and is not referred to in public documents, sworn statements and media accounts as such, then why is it being titled that way here? It appears to be sensational and defending it as such does not jive with Wikipedia guidelines for naming articles. The guidelines state that when a common name cannot be established or agreed upon, the event should be named according to place, event and when it occurred. Please see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events). It is my opinion that this article has been titled incorrectly according to the Wikipedia Naming Conventions. It should be titled "April 16, 2007 Shooting(s) at Virginia Tech" and not "Virginia Tech Massacre." (Possum4all (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

If you are comparing the Fort Hood shooting to the Virginia Tech massacre and Columbine High School massacre, there is actually a difference. Massacre "denotes the promiscuous slaughter of many who can not make resistance, or much resistance". In the case of Fort Hood, there was a clear exchange of gunfire that indicates the presence of personnel that can put up a resistance against the perpetrator. Although the term "tragedy" is widely used in public, it has a different meaning in an encyclopedic context. There is also no need for a more specific title using a date as the event is unambiguous enough according to the policy you cited. Arsonal (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

But it still doesn't account for multiples of place. What if an additional event occurs? It would be "Tiananmen Square Massacre II" right? I just don't think the integrity of the title will stand the test of time, nor is it neutral WP:NPOV -- despite the definition. And I don't think the standard for these kinds of occurrences should be whether or not the victims could return fire. So it's a massacre because the Fort Hood victims exchanged fire with the alleged perpetrator? Offered resistance? Virginia Tech victims barricaded doors. That's resistance, right? Still seems sensational to me to use the phrase "massacre." Makes me think that the original intent for the title was Google hits. (Possum4all (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

We do not speculate on future occurrences. Until a similar incident happens (but hopefully not), the title is unambiguous. On the issue of naming, I believe this event must be limited to the context of a school shooting. (I probably should not have compared it to Fort Hood.) Within this scope, the definition of "slaughter of many" still holds as more deaths occurred at Virginia Tech than any other similar incidents nationally and globally. I do feel that "massacre" is being used objectively and that "shooting" would actually violate neutral point of view by not clearly defining the scale of the incident. Arsonal (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A google news archive search still shows a clear preference for massacre. (5,540 vs. 3,730) HokieRNB 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the word "massacre" as neutral. It is sensational and inflammatory. "Massacre" is no more or less ambiguous than "shooting" in this situation. And, again, it does not reflect "when" the event occurred per WP Naming guidelines. I don't think "body count" should be a factor in determining the "massacre" naming convention, Arsonal, as it sets the wrong precedent for future taxonomy. I'm sure we'd find, too, that the common search term or keyword would be "shooting" and not "massacre." I'm going to continue to suggest this Article name be changed to "April 16, 2007 Shooting at Viriginia Tech" following the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events). We can simply place a Wikipedia:Redirect on the title "Virginia Tech Massacre." (Possum4all (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Per the naming conventions referenced, the only things that are required to identify the event unambiguously:

• Where the incident happened. (Virginia Tech)
• What happened. (Massacre)

Virginia Tech has had other shootings, but not other massacres. Conversely, there have been other massacres, but not at Virginia Tech. HokieRNB 13:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the naming guidelines for events, the When is added if the Where and What are not specific enough. A clear example is Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989. (Possum4all (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

I think you are misunderstanding my points here. You are raising two separate issues. The first is the word choice between "massacre" and "shooting". The second is on usage of a date disambiguator. Resolution of the first must be reached by consensus. Our individual beliefs do not change anything. There was no consensus to change back in April of last year. On the second issue, naming conventions already state that "[t]he year [...] should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident". Arsonal (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm on your side here: there is a semantic difference between shooting and massacre. Theshibboleth (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, looks like this has been debated ad nauseum without a resolution or clear consensus. I'm starting to understand why. Hard to build consensus on the semantics of an ambiguous and potentially inflammatory word like "massacre." It appears to me that this will continue to be controversial and should probably be carried to arbitration for a clear resolution. (Possum4all (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

I suggest that we archive or merge this into the Talk archive mentioned above by Arsonal. (Possum4all (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

Not all massacres are shootings, so the argument that "massacre" is a more accurate term is false. Furthermore, massacres are generally carried out by more than one person, not a single spree-shooter. Lastly, "spree shootings" almost always involve an unarmed crowd, so there's no need to use "massacre" to further distinguish that. --Ascot4903 (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

With the Aurora shooting, I think it's becoming clearer that the word "massacre" is wrong for the title. The title is NOT consistent with the other spree shooting events. The spree shootings are all called such, except this and Columbine. Why? --Possum4all (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

New federal gun control measure?

This article claims (without a source) that the shooting "also led to passage of the first major federal gun control measure in more than 13 years." I don't believe this is true. What new "federal gun control measure" was passed? The article refers to a law that strengthened the NICS. But then it adds that, in addition, there was a new federal gun control measure. But no source is included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.65.102 (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge there are new laws regarding the face ot face purchase of ammo in California coming up in feb 2011, but no Federal laws were put into effect as a knee jerk reaction of this incident. J. ORLY? (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Activist versus Group

The phrase "gun rights activist" concerns me because groups with opposing points of view (the Brady group) are not labelled as "anti-gun rights activists." To be fair, shouldn't both sides be labelled or neither? 192.31.106.35 (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)mike

I believe you are correct, it is a POV issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jill Orly (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture

A song on the Exodus' new Album "Exhibit B: The Human Condition" called "Class Dismissed (A Hate Primer)," is a reference to Cho and the massacre. Is it appropriate to use this song in popular culture segment of the page. Here is a link to the VT massacre view http://www.noisecreep.com/2010/04/23/exodus-class-dismissed-a-hate-primer-new-song/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.241.139 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There was also that kid who made that controversial NES-style game on Newgrounds, which isn't mentioned here.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ballistics inaccuracy/explanation

The last sentence of the description of the shootings reads "Conversely, due to the limited penetration depth of hollow point bullets, it is likely that Colman would have died had they not been used". The reference is a 20 year old material, and the ammunition used is not pointed to in the article as what Cho used. The statement that hollowpoint bullets have limited penetration seems to suggest that they have limited wounding capabilities which is ludicrous. Also, you have to go back 3 paragraphs to determine who "Coleman" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jill Orly (talk • contribs) 03:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The above person clearly has no grasp of how hollowpoint bullets work. Yes, penetration is limited. Penetration is limited because hollowpoint bullets expand, causing the expanded bullet to cut a larger diameter wound channel and transferring more of the bullet's energy to the target's body. Often that means the bullet runs out of energy before it has passed all the way through the target's body. By way of contrast, "full metal jacket" pistol bullets, in particular those of the 9mm Parabellum cartridge as used in Cho's Glock Model 19, have a reputation for making small-diameter wounds and passing completely though bodies.

It is quite plausibe that Colman would have been killed by bullets passing through Lumbantoruan's body if they had been non-expanding full metal jacket bullets rather than expanding hollowpoint bullets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.208.243 (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits about Cho's mother seeking spiritual help / exorcism

Editors Gekritzl and ElKevbo have been adding content (the latter just one time) about Cho's mother seeking spiritual help trough an exorcism for Cho. Arkon and I have reverted most of this edits (I also once rephrased the content to conform to the source, and Arkon once reverted the use of the term "exorcism" as it does not exist in the sources). I have opened a thread in the original research noticeboard about this matter. I would ask all parties interested in this matter to discuss it in the mentioned thread in order to concentrate the opinions, and reach a consensus. Thank you all. --Legion fi (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No offense but... let's see how many man-hours we can WASTE over nothing more than a matter of semantics, a synonym, as MithrasPriest pointed out. Anybody? I already went back to my life. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Non taken, I'm majoring in linguistic engineering so I never waste time over semantics.--Legion fi (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

From the WP page on "No Original Research" -- Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material. Seeking spiritual help to rid Cho of "demons" is the very definition of exorcism, and WP No OR encourages "your own words." User Legion fi seems to believe that using a synonym constitutes Original Research and that simply is not true. MithrasPriest (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a scintilla of a point here but I think the objections are stronger. When I think "exorcism," for example, I think of the specific Catholic ritual which is clearly the wrong conclusion to draw or encourage here.

Further, I'm not sure why it's such a big deal to exclude this one word that isn't used by any of the reliable sources cited thus far. The message is conveyed even without that specific word. ElKevbo (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Kevbo -- you said When I think "exorcism," for example, I think of the specific Catholic ritual... you surprise me. You know well your opinion of the defition of exorcism is irrelevant. Go to the dictionary; and, even the 1987 Catholic Encylopedia calls it a "rite whereby devils are expelled from possessed persons..." -- clearly what Cho's mom had in mind. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"When Cho was home for the Summer from Virginia Tech, some local Christians thought he needed an exorcism and convinced his mother to take him to another church and seek help from the pastor. That pastor, however, was unable to establish communication with Cho and there was no exorcism." -- from Bible News -- http://www.biblenews1.com/astrology/acharts/cho_seung-hui.html -- MithrasPriest (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A source that heavily relies on Wikipedia as source material can not be considered a reliable source for our purposes. ElKevbo (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a very, very weak consensus (me and the only other editor to respond) at the OR notice board that the bulk of this material is ok or at least non-controversial but the specific mention of "exorcism" isn't ok unless a source specifically mentions it in connection to Cho. Personally, I'm not even terribly offended or worried by the use of the word but I can see how others can differ so I'm fine with a consensus to exclude it pending better sourcing.

However, I completely agree with Legion fi that the sources being cited to try to include "exorcism" do not belong in this article and their use is clear synthesis which is not permitted in Wikipedia. They don't mention Cho and they're not related to Cho and they don't belong in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"You know, the recent shooting at Virginia Tech. The mother of the shooter recognized that there was something wrong with her son. You know, he was suffering from some kind of mental problem. In the context of her rather doctrinary Christianity, she did not take him to a psychiatrist. She took him from church to church in search of exorcism. She actually found a church that performed an exorcism." -- Sam Harris, "On Interpreting Scripture," http://bigthink.com/ideas/3123 -- MithrasPriest (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well done MithrasPriest, I am sure it was Harris who I first read, saying Cho's mom was in search of exorcism. I couldn't find the ref. Thanks. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You may find it helpful to review our policy on reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know who Sam Harris is? MithrasPriest (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but it doesn't really matter because we don't cite blog posts as reliable sources except in extraordinary circumstances and even then they're limited to being expressions of the author's point of view. ElKevbo (talk)

So, it doesn't matter who said or wrote it, but where it exists on the web? How about if I find that same Sam Harris interview on YouTube, is that a better source? Thanks... MithrasPriest (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In many ways, yes, it is often more about the venue than the author. Really, it would be good to review WP:RS if you haven't already done so. Our use of "reliable" is different from common usage of the word. ElKevbo (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've read WP:RS many times, and it has changed drastically over the years. No matter. Oh, here's Sam Harris on YouTube making the same statement about the VA Tech shooter's mother seeking exorcism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27pDmWOO73c -- just because Sam says it doesn't make it true, but it's yet another source to support the original edit by Mr or Ms Gekritzl. And Dr. Harris is a very reliable source. MithrasPriest (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"A person" can not be reliable in the sense that we use that word here in Wikipedia. YouTube is not reliable and probably not even a source in the way in which we use those terms here. Find a source that has been vetted, has editorial guidelines, and possesses a reputation for fact-checking and integrity and that is probably a reliable source for our purposes. (And because Sam - or anyone else - can post the same message in multiple places doesn't really mean much unless one of those places is itself a reliable source.) ElKevbo (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sam Harris IS the source. YouTube is merely the medium. Clearly this video interview with him has not been altered, and surely is reliable as the word of the author, Dr. Harris. Just because someone posted it on YouTube doesn't take away from its original reliability! MithrasPriest (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• (Cross posted from the No Original Research Noticeboard.) Using the bulk of those sources is original research. They do not discuss the topic at hand. Adding more sources is just creating a bigger case of original synthesis. At best, you can report that Sam Harris (author) claims that Cho's mother took him church to church seeking out an exorcism. Making broader assertions and including unrelated sources is certainly original research. Also, unless a large number of other experts and prominent authors agree with Dr. Harris, it should be a single sentence passing mention in the body of the article and left out of the lede. Harris is certainly a prominent figure and commentary on such a situation is well within his public profile. However, anything more than the single sentence attributed view would be excessive weight based on the body of reliable sources. Vassyana (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I will reply to personal allusions. @MithrasPriest: No, I don't think the use of synonyms constitutes OR. In this case, the original synthesis came from Gekritzl adding a source that stated that Korean pastors were sought to help Cho, alongside a source that said that Korean pastors are likely to perform exorcism, and a third unrelated source about a Korean girl dead probably as a result of an exorcism, all three sources to advance the point that Cho's mother sought an exorcism among Korean Christian congregations. That is synthesis, and I think that we have established so. @Gekritzl: Now you bring the subject of it being a semantic difference. If we are going to get into that, please acknowledge that Webster does not directly defines "exorcism" (the noun) as "to get rid of (something troublesome...)", but does it at the definition of "exorcise" (the verb). There can be semantic differences between the meaning of the verb and the noun.

Discussing about the use of the word exorcism (and leaving away the discussion of reliability of the Sam Harris interview), I think we have somehow acknowledged that using multiple sources to advance the source constitutes both synthesis and undue weight. Now I think that the discussion should focus in the meaning of the term. As ElKevbo stated, the noun "exorcism" is more often used as the ritual of casting out demons from a possessed individual or place (even Gekritzl used the word "possessed"). There are no sources (leaving aside the Harris source, which please let's not get into) that reliably states that there was a belief that Cho was possessed. Having stated that, I have to admit that the verb "exorcise" is wider in it's meanings. So maybe, if we can reach a consensus about it, we could use the verb to include the term that Gekritzl was seeking. But, if we do, I also have to bring the undue weight issue into the discussion. I also think that the sentence shouldn't be in the lead. Basically what I'm proposing is the use of the verb exorcise as a synonym to "get rid of demons", but in a sentence outside the lead. I think that should pretty much cover all the concerns, and would avoid a larger discussion about the reliability of the Harris interview. Thank you all for your opinions and participation. --Legion fi (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Cho's sister

I distinctly remember that at the time there was a lot of coverage on Cho's sister and the fact she was their parents' favorite and the effect this had on Cho, yet I don't read any of this back in the article. Care to explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Virginia Tech massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GamerPro64 (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Dab/EL check- I found one dab link and 14 dead links in the article. To check them out, please look at the links at the right side in the box.
• I believe that there should be some mention of V-Tech Rampage in the article.
• haven't received any replies about any fixes on the comments I have made on this article. So I will fail the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that sources which were originally valid, but which no longer exist were nonetheless acceptable. Is that not correct? As for V-Tech Rampage, I don't agree that it should be mentioned here. It's not at all appropriate. --B (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • If you think that this article is unjustified, please make a Good article reassessment. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

AFD notification

As this article is related and probably more watched, I'm giving notification here. I have nominated Wendell Flinchum for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendell Flinchum if you wish to opine. --B (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Liviu Librescu

Why is it mentioned that one of the teachers was a Holocaust survivor as he was holding the door shut? This is inappropriate and has nothing to do with his actions at the time of shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.142.155 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 April 2011

How exactly does that make it inappropriate? The source felt a need to make mention and I personally think it's factual and and pertinent that a Holocaust survivor was killed trying to save students during the shooting. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Weapons line in infobox

The "Weapon(s) Glock 19, Walther P22" information seems out of place in the infobox for some reason. Putting that line there puts disproportionate importance and stress on the brands of weapon used, since the rest of the information is of the most fundamental information about the attack (location, amount of casualties, etc). For me, adding weapon brands into the infobox adds a weird artificial coldness to it, making it seem more like something you would find on a website made by people obsessed with mass murders rather than something you would find on Wikipedia. Therefore, I think it should be removed. 46.162.70.221 (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Photos of the victims and shooter

There's a picture of the shooter posing with his guns trying to look badass but none of the victims anywhere. And people wonder why kids do this kind of crap. KevinLuna (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Shooting

I'm totally against adding information about the shooting that happened today in this article. We know absolutely nothing about this, the shooter is still on the loose, and it appears to be during a traffic stop. If this turns out to be just random crime during a traffic stop, no one will remember anything about this incident in a year. 129.186.245.2 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur, and I note you have removed it. The event should only go on the Virginia Tech page, if anywhere. Just please use an edit summary for you edits - 220 of ^Borg 19:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone has added info about the alert system and it's use yesterday. I don't see yesterday's event is relevant to April 16. I will be reverting or editing that info. --Possum4all (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely worth mentioning since (a) the alert system was installed in direct response to the 2007 shooting and (b) media are making a direct connection between these events. For example, NPR had a brief snippet from of one the father of one the 2007 victims describing his satisfaction with the way the university reacted yesterday. Other news stories have similarly included reaction from students who were present for both events.

With that said, this shouldn't be more than a sentence or two in this article with most of the details left for the article for the 2011 incident. ElKevbo (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not on the massacre page. This page will become a list of Alert notices.... and why are just the shooting incidents being listed, then. Weather related alerts that work and notifications to campus by the system that aren't lock-down in nature should also be include, then. Come on. This is just sensationalism getting pushed on a wikipedia entry page. --Possum4all (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't have to list every alert; don't be silly.

The link between these two events is obvious and being widely reported on in reliable sources. Acknowledging the link between the two incidents, particularly the legacy of the 2007 shooting and its alert systems and processes, is quite appropriate. We can do that without allowing this article to become a running commentary of every tragic or alarming event at the university. But to try to freeze this article in place and not acknowledge the continuing impact of the event is short-sighted and makes for a poorer encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. I read snippets talking about people kneeling at the 4/16 memorial. I think that the new event elicited responses related to the earlier event and those should be reported. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because it elicits a response or similar response from the Virginia Tech community doesn't mean that the April 16 event needs to be amended to accommodate the response. I don't see how any crime on the Virginia Tech campus that has an immediate response from their community should turn into a wikipedia entry on violence and crime and be tied back to April 16th. People are injured, robbed, asulted, etc.. on campus and the alert system is used for those events, too. They don't result/deserve a wikipedia entry or an addendum to this entry. --Possum4all (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No one is advocating for adding other events or responses so stop accusing of doing so. We're discussing this one incident, the first incident in which someone was killed by a firearm and is already firmly linked to the 2007 attack by many reliable sources. At this point NPOV demands we include something in this article given the links already drawn by reliable sources.

This article is not a memorial or a static entry limited to the events of one day. It's a living, evolving document that encompasses the event and all of the important things surrounding it, including subsequent events that are strongly linked to it. ElKevbo (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pointer to 2011 Shooting

Is it necessary to have a shooting pointer at the top of the Massacre entry? That page us up for deletion.--Possum4all (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It should still be up there, as it is unknown if the page will be deleted and it stops editors from adding info about the 2011 shooting to this article. Buggie111 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it certainly doesn't hurt anything. If the article is deleted, we'll probably want to change the link to point to wherever the material goes - main VT article, VT history article, whatever. I don't think the hatnote should remain forever, though, only a short time (week?) until the 2011 shooting becomes less of a very prominent topic of discussion. Right now this seems like a good service to provide to readers. ElKevbo (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Kim-Jong Un

Could it be noted somewhere in the article that the fifth anniversary of this is a day or two after Kim-Jong Un's first speech in North Korea? -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Why? That's an insignificant coincidence. Inferring any relationship would be original research. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

External Links

A link I added to a recent book on the Virginia Tech Massacre was removed as promotional content/spam. Not sure if this was a mistake or intentional. I reinstated the link and checked the guidelines to be sure. The book is directly relevant to the article's subject. If the new link is somehow inappropriate, the link to the documentary should also be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

An Amazon link to a new book is completely inappropriate for an External links section. If the book is truly invaluable, it would be better listed in a Further reading section. The best thing to do is to actually use the book to add new and interesting material to the article so it's listed in the References section (surely that's easy to do if you've read the book and it's so relevant!). ElKevbo (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a book has to be invaluable to be listed; it need only be directly relevant. But your sarcasm (?) aside, it's significant that in an article on such an important event, no books at all on the event are referenced. Rather than introduce new content into the article from that author's book, I'll take your point and try to add a 'Further Reading' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I've again removed the book. Apologies if this appears to be an edit war but I looked into the book a bit more and it's published by CreateSpace, a self-publishing service. So the book is presumed to be not very reliable unless additional information (positive book reviews, citations in known-reliable sources, etc.) can be provided. Please see WP:RS to review our policies about reliable sources and WP:SPS for specific information about the reliability of self-published sources. ElKevbo (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Didn't see those guidelines. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Numbers wrong

The lead and the box with the victims say 32 killed. BUt this part "of the 30 killed, 28 were shot in the head" says 30. Can someone explain this difference? And if you count Cho it's 33, plus the 6 injured escaping from windows.

This text refers specifically to the Norris Hall shootings, not the earlier ones from the dormitory. The numbers all appear accurate as of now. Cho shot and killed 32 people before committing suicide, bringing the total to 33. HokieRNB 17:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Subliminal Distraction

In two phone interviews of Cho's suite-mates on Cable TV news programs Cho was reveled to have created Subliminal Distraction exposure and would have experienced the psychotic-like episode SD exposure has been known to cause for 48 years. Both the President and Dean of students at Tech replied to communications and promised action to investigate this. But nothing has been done. This revelation would make Tech responsible for the shooting.

His roommates said he sat in the outer suite room using his computer to perform classwork and would not look up and acknowledge them as they walked by him going and returning from classes. One of them said he increased that activity in the month before the shooting.___ They were describing how disturbed and distant he was and did not understand they were also describing Subliminal Distraction.

Engineers and designers hired to modernize the business office discovered the problem when it caused mental breaks for office workers in 1964. The Cubicle was designed to block peripheral vision to stop it by 1968. That prevents repeating subliminal failed attempts to execute the vision startle reflex, explained in first semester psychology as a subliminal distraction. If the mental break it causes is mentioned in lectures about peripheral vision reflexes it is treated as something that happened only once, long ago. My instructor said, "Subliminal sight caused a problem in the early days of modern office design."

The Redlake tribal school, Jokela Finland school,and Atlanta day trader killers also created this problem. Barton, Atlanta, thought he was having a mental break from inherited mental illness.

L K Tucker VisionAndPsychosis.Net I own the copyright for VisionAndPsychosis.Net. 2602:306:CCE1:2C50:1095:FF3D:38F4:1CC4 (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree it can be added. a little wrewriting but yes looks fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereisnospoons (talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

How many wounded?

According to Seung-Hui Cho's page he killed 32 and wounded 23, but this page says he killed 32 and wounded 15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.226.193 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! The 15 should have been 17 additional victims shot; another 6 were injured jumping out of windows. I've updated the number and provided an additional reference about the additional 6 injured. The total is 23 injured, which is correct.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 21:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There are some problems with one sentence

The part "previously adjudicated" means that a court of law decided. Rather than just go and change it to "judged by authorities", I'd appreciate feedback.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of university response

That didn't take long. A section added here earlier today on 'Criticism of university response' has been removed without comment. Can we have the reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Did you actually read the section you removed before removing it?

The subject of the section is criticism of the university's response. The criticism comes from Prof. Kenneth Westhues, who is notable enough apparently to have his own Wiki entry (see deleted section). The section you deleted mentions a series of articles accessible through the link provided -- two of which appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Only one of which is 'self-published', appearing on the professor's blog.

This article has at least half a dozen separate 'response' sub-sections. Is it really impossible that there can be mention of criticism of Virginia Tech's response on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

First, although I appreciate you opening this discussion in Talk you should not have restored the text after it was initially removed; that's not how we operate.

Second, if the material you added comes from multiple sources then you should cite those sources. I only see two sources that you've provided and they're both self-published with one being on the author's website and the other being some blog post on a blog that only has that one post. Without any evidence that this material has been referenced by others, it doesn't belong in this article no matter who wrote it.

There is certainly a case to be made that the university's response wasn't perfect but that case needs to be made with much better evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I invite you to click on the ref link given in the section to the 'series of articles'. On the left, in easy to read large text, you will find links to articles by Westhues -- some of which were published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch as mentioned. The main body of the article is indeed 'self-published'. But as Wikipedia's own article on Westhues states, he is a listed authority on the topic of mobbing. It strikes me as odd that this would be a problem since Wikipedia seems to cite blogs and new media all the time. Heinrich66 (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, another reason why your comment above is odd is because the purpose of the section 'Criticism of university response' is not to prove the university was at fault. It's simply to note as a fact that criticism exists. In this case, it comes from an established professor who is an authority in his field. Heinrich66 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Drop the attacks and focus on the article.

It's not our job to hunt down the references you should have cited in your edit. For the second time, if there are independent sources that have referenced the material you added then you should cite them. Right now all you have are two self-published items, one from a professor's website and the other an unsigned piece on a random blog.

Once again I ask: Why should this material be included in this article if no one else has published it or cited it? I don't dispute that the author is an expert in his field but if no one else has referenced his works then they don't belong in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it curious how certain articles have these standards rigidly enforced and yet others are a complete mess. [BTW, it's funny that the section has now been immediately deleted by someone who only seems to have contributed to articles about Seung-Hui Cho and George W. Bush in the past. Did you call him up to avoid 3RR?] If Westhues had expressed his opinions in an interview with a magazine (or on somebody else's blog, for that matter) that would have been sufficient as citation to show that a) criticism exists; and b) that he was the one criticizing. Yet the writing by the man himself is somehow not sufficient. The link I gave was itself a direct and the most efficient way for a reader to access Westhues' writing on Virginia Tech -- which is the purpose of citation after all. But fine, if you're to be taken at your word, I'll re-work the section. Heinrich66 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This is from Wikipedia's own guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[6]

So how do you justify what you wrote above? Westhues is an established expert in mobbing (even according to Wikipedia) who self-published at least one piece and published another stating his view that the VT shootings were the result of mobbing. And yet the whole section has been removed. Heinrich66 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Just because something has been published in a reliable source doesn't mean we should or must include it. We must employ judgment about what to include and one of the best ways to do that is to see what other experts have done with the material in question. If no one else has referenced it then that is a good indication that maybe it's not important or influential enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Otherwise we're just left guessing about what's important and relying on the opinions of volunteers who may not be experts or worse. ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Now you're moving the goalposts. So you say that *even if* something is determined to be a reliable source, that doesn't mean it should be included? It's a 'judgment call'? And yet somehow this judgment call you're appealing to saves us from the 'opinions of volunteers who may not be experts'?

You are a volunteer, not an expert. According to Wikipedia's own guideline (quoted above) a self-published piece *may* be included "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". This is clearly the case with Westhues. 1) He is a recognized expert on mobbing. 2) He has published in reliable third-party publications on mobbing. 3) He claims mobbing happened at Virginia Tech.

I'd also like to note for anyone reading this, that there should even be a slightly weaker standard here since what we're talking about is not a wiki article on mobbing, but rather the factual question of whether criticism of the university exists in connection with the shootings. It does exist; it's undeniable. In this particular case, the critic (Westhues) has criticized the university for failing to recognize Cho was mobbed. Whether or not we agree with him, it is a fact that he has made this criticism. It's also a fact based on Wikipedia's own guideline above, as a recognized expert in his field, not only can self-published material of his be cited, but as a professor and published author, the balance goes in favor of his inclusion on this point. Heinrich66 (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not seriously advocating that we should always include every single publication that meets WP:RS in every applicable article, are you? Surely you see how unworkable and undesirable that standard is! ElKevbo (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not making any sense now. I've reworked the section according to the criticisms of yours that appear legitimate. Whether or not what's going on here is simple gate-keeping, time will tell. Here's a summary of the changes: 1. Three citations are now given for Westhues: a) a self-published piece -- which under Wikipedia guidelines may be used when the author is a specialist/expert in his field b) a published piece in the Richmond Times-Dispatch c) a peer-reviewed third-party piece by Ffion Murphy from a series called "The Creativity and Uncertainty Papers: the refereed proceedings of the 13th conference of the Australian Association of Writing Programs, 2008".

These three ought to be sufficient to establish the factual issue of: a) whether criticism of the university exists; b) whether it is Westhues who is criticizing; c) whether that criticism involves the concept of mobbing.

2) I've removed the citation to the unsigned blog post, and redirected it instead to the Westhues piece where he cites it. The responsibility for the citation, therefore, is Westhues', not Wikipedia's.

The above addresses your legitimate concerns. I think it's non-controversial that there should be a section on criticism of the university. The VT massacre was a major event, as shown by its having a Wiki article. Also, as the same article points out, the university was fined, which suggests its conduct was perhaps not impeccable. On the factual question of whether public criticism of the university also exists in connection with the shootings, we have it: a professor who is a recognized expert in his field has publicly criticized the university and its response to the shootings for failing to recognize their cause, which he claims is mobbing. He has not only self-published this view (which can be cited according to Wiki guidelines), but published it in a major newspaper, and his work has been cited at least once by another academic in a peer-reviewed journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yang Xin murdered

Yang Xin was murdered at Viginia Tech later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Haiyang Zhu was convicted.